[html5] r5994 - [e] (0) apply wg decision Fixing http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10202

[whatwg at whatwg.org]

Author: ianh
Date: 2011-04-12 15:13:47 -0700 (Tue, 12 Apr 2011)
New Revision: 5994

Modified:
   complete.html
   index
   source
Log:
[e] (0) apply wg decision
Fixing http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10202

Modified: complete.html
===================================================================
--- complete.html	2011-04-12 21:58:42 UTC (rev 5993)
+++ complete.html	2011-04-12 22:13:47 UTC (rev 5994)
@@ -25988,14 +25988,29 @@
   when it is used to label a potential <a href=#media-resource>media
   resource</a>.</p>
 
-  <p class=note>In the absence of a <!-- pretty crazy -->
-  specification to the contrary, the <a href=#mime-type>MIME type</a>
-  "<code>application/octet-stream</code>" when used <em>with</em>
-  parameters, e.g.
-  "<code>application/octet-stream;codecs=theora</code>", <em>is</em>
-  <a href=#a-type-that-the-user-agent-knows-it-cannot-render>a type that the user agent knows it cannot render</a>,
-  since that parameter is not defined for that type.</p>
+  <p class=note>
+  
+  Only the <a href=#mime-type>MIME type</a> <!-- the WG decision started with the next bit, which is not in the style of the spec -->
+  
+  "<code>application/octet-stream</code>"
+  
+  with no parameters
+  
+  is special-cased here; if any parameter appears with it, it
+  
+  will <!-- the WG decision that led to this text had a "should", but this is a non-normative section -->
+  be treated just like any other <a href=#mime-type>MIME type</a>.
 
+  This is a deviation from the rule <!-- in RFC 2046, section 1,
+  paragraph 3 --> that unknown <a href=#mime-type>MIME type</a> parameters
+  should be ignored.
+
+  <!-- but not really a "willful violation" since it's not that the
+  types are not being ignored, just that before the type is handled as
+  a type, there's a special case for a particular set of strings -->
+
+  </p>
+
   <dl class=domintro><dt><var title="">media</var> . <code title=dom-navigator-canPlayType><a href=#dom-navigator-canplaytype>canPlayType</a></code>(<var title="">type</var>)</dt>
 
    <dd>

Modified: index
===================================================================
--- index	2011-04-12 21:58:42 UTC (rev 5993)
+++ index	2011-04-12 22:13:47 UTC (rev 5994)
@@ -25976,14 +25976,29 @@
   when it is used to label a potential <a href=#media-resource>media
   resource</a>.</p>
 
-  <p class=note>In the absence of a <!-- pretty crazy -->
-  specification to the contrary, the <a href=#mime-type>MIME type</a>
-  "<code>application/octet-stream</code>" when used <em>with</em>
-  parameters, e.g.
-  "<code>application/octet-stream;codecs=theora</code>", <em>is</em>
-  <a href=#a-type-that-the-user-agent-knows-it-cannot-render>a type that the user agent knows it cannot render</a>,
-  since that parameter is not defined for that type.</p>
+  <p class=note>
+  
+  Only the <a href=#mime-type>MIME type</a> <!-- the WG decision started with the next bit, which is not in the style of the spec -->
+  
+  "<code>application/octet-stream</code>"
+  
+  with no parameters
+  
+  is special-cased here; if any parameter appears with it, it
+  
+  will <!-- the WG decision that led to this text had a "should", but this is a non-normative section -->
+  be treated just like any other <a href=#mime-type>MIME type</a>.
 
+  This is a deviation from the rule <!-- in RFC 2046, section 1,
+  paragraph 3 --> that unknown <a href=#mime-type>MIME type</a> parameters
+  should be ignored.
+
+  <!-- but not really a "willful violation" since it's not that the
+  types are not being ignored, just that before the type is handled as
+  a type, there's a special case for a particular set of strings -->
+
+  </p>
+
   <dl class=domintro><dt><var title="">media</var> . <code title=dom-navigator-canPlayType><a href=#dom-navigator-canplaytype>canPlayType</a></code>(<var title="">type</var>)</dt>
 
    <dd>

Modified: source
===================================================================
--- source	2011-04-12 21:58:42 UTC (rev 5993)
+++ source	2011-04-12 22:13:47 UTC (rev 5994)
@@ -27968,14 +27968,32 @@
   when it is used to label a potential <span>media
   resource</span>.</p>
 
-  <p class="note">In the absence of a <!-- pretty crazy -->
-  specification to the contrary, the <span>MIME type</span>
-  "<code>application/octet-stream</code>" when used <em>with</em>
-  parameters, e.g.
-  "<code>application/octet-stream;codecs=theora</code>", <em>is</em>
-  <span>a type that the user agent knows it cannot render</span>,
-  since that parameter is not defined for that type.</p>
+  <p class="note">
+  <!--END w3c-html-->
+  Only the <span>MIME type</span> <!-- the WG decision started with the next bit, which is not in the style of the spec -->
+  <!--START w3c-html-->
+  "<code>application/octet-stream</code>"
+  <!--END w3c-html-->
+  with no parameters
+  <!--START w3c-html-->
+  is special-cased here; if any parameter appears with it, it
+  <!--END w3c-html-->
+  will <!-- the WG decision that led to this text had a "should", but this is a non-normative section -->
+  <!--START w3c-html--><!--END html--><!--END complete--><!--END epub--><!--END dev-html-->
+  should
+  <!--START html--><!--START complete--><!--START epub--><!--START dev-html-->
+  be treated just like any other <span>MIME type</span>.
 
+  This is a deviation from the rule <!-- in RFC 2046, section 1,
+  paragraph 3 --> that unknown <span>MIME type</span> parameters
+  should be ignored.
+
+  <!-- but not really a "willful violation" since it's not that the
+  types are not being ignored, just that before the type is handled as
+  a type, there's a special case for a particular set of strings -->
+
+  </p>
+
   <dl class="domintro">
 
    <dt><var title="">media</var> . <code title="dom-navigator-canPlayType">canPlayType</code>(<var title="">type</var>)</dt>